The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: SVPete on October 10, 2026, 07:33:48 AM
-
California Sheriff Backs Down, Ends County’s Ban on 1911s, Red Dots, and Pistol Lights
https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-control/california-sheriff-backs-down-ends-countys-ban-on-1911s-red-dots-and-pistol-lights/ (https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-control/california-sheriff-backs-down-ends-countys-ban-on-1911s-red-dots-and-pistol-lights/)
The Second Amendment Foundation has reached a settlement agreement with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office over policies that previously prohibited permit holders from carrying handguns equipped with red dot sights or flashlights and an outright ban on the carry of single action only 1911- and 2011-style pistols.
Under the agreement, the Sheriff’s Office will withdraw its prohibitions on red-dot sights, weapon-mounted lights and semiautomatic single-action 1911 and 2011 platform pistols carried under a county CCW license. The office will update its concealed-carry website within 10 days to reflect the change. SAF was joined in SAF v. Contra Costa County by private citizens Andrew Moore and James Treuel who were represented by John W. Dillon of the Dillon Law Group.
“A sheriff does not get to invent a shorter list of approved handguns and accessories than the Constitution allows,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education and attorney of record in the case Kostas Moros. “Even though red-dot sights, weapon lights and 1911 and 2011 pistols are in common use for lawful self-defense, Contra Costa treated them as contraband. This settlement ends that unlawful practice, and we are pleased the County saw the error if its ways and resolved these issues.”
CoCo County's sheriff earned this legal smackdown. It sounds like county supervisors woke up to the reality that the sheriff's prohibitions would lose if they came to trial and instead settled, apparently with court oversight.
-
NEW YORKER EXPOSED
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/10/new-yorker-exposed.php (https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/10/new-yorker-exposed.php)
I really enjoy watching a smart guy work, and Jared Kushner is a very smart guy. A volunteer in his nation’s service with a remarkable record of success in both private and public life, he has been relentlessly smeared by liberals. Most recently, the New Yorker did a hit job on him that was embarrassingly amateurish. I remember hearing many years ago that the New Yorker employed fact checkers, but that obviously is no longer true.
Yesterday, Kushner took to his own web site to respond to the New Yorker’s latest smears. It is a job well done; I recommend reading it all, just for fun. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Affinity Partners Fundraise
Claim
Earlier this year, as Kushner engaged in talks with Iran, he was also discreetly raising another five billion dollars for Affinity in the Middle East. After the attacks on Tehran began, suspicions arose that the two endeavors were linked. “My sense is that he thinks he was killing two birds with one stone, he was helping the Arabs defeat the Iranians, and he wanted to be paid for it,” an American with deep ties to Middle Eastern leaders told me.
Note that there is no source for this libel. “An American with deep ties to Middle Eastern leaders” could be just about anyone–i.e., any political enemy of the Trump administration, a group that includes all the people the New Yorker knows.
Reality
I have raised no additional funds for Affinity Partners since President Trump was elected to his second term.
Once a certain percentage of a fund’s initial capital has been committed, it is standard practice to consider a potential future vehicle. The instant the actions in Iran began and I was asked to extend my volunteer role, I ended all conversations about additional fundraising.
On March 19, 2026, The New York Times reported that Affinity’s chief legal officer, Ian Brekke, acknowledged “early conversations” while making clear that the firm “does not intend to take in any additional capital while Jared is volunteering for the government.”
I also told The New Yorker during its fact-checking process that no additional capital had been raised. That distinction matters. Preliminary conversations about a possible future fund are not the same thing as raising a fund, yet the article stated that I was “discreetly raising another five billion dollars” while engaged in talks with Iran. That sentence was beyond misleading.
The predictable result was that other publications converted that wording into an asserted fact. The New Republic reported that “Kushner managed to raise $5 billion for his group, Affinity Partners.” Mediaite similarly reported that I had raised $5 billion while negotiating with Iran.
That did not happen. Affinity has raised zero additional capital during this period. Zero.
This is a useful example of why precision matters. A preliminary conversation became “raising” $5 billion, which then became, in subsequent coverage, $5 billion actually “raised.” The latter claim is objectively false.
We contacted both publications to correct the record, but they have declined to do so.
Saudi Internal Politics
Claim
M.B.S. called Kushner to discuss his plans, in a conversation that was secretly recorded. “Kushner told M.B.S. that everyone in the U.S. government except the intelligence agencies was behind him,” a former regional intelligence official told me, explaining that he had seen a transcript of the call.
“It was the green light.” (Kushner’s spokesman denied this.)
Reality
This conversation never occurred. There is no transcript. Journalists basing allegations on an anonymous source supposedly having seen a “transcript” of a call should at the very least authenticate that the conversation actually took place. The New Yorker did not provide a transcript, and I unequivocally deny having the conversation described here.
The New Yorker’s hit piece depended on 1) far-fetched, politically-motivated smears by anonymous sources, and 2) the magazine writers’ total ignorance of the financial world–an ignorance that no doubt is shared by the New Yorker’s readers. When a partisan rag like the New Yorker or the New York Times quotes an anonymous source toward a political end, I assume that the anonymous assertion is more likely false than true.